About Jason Thibeault

Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.

The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember -- this is my property, not yours.

If you are anti-science, you are anti-jobs.

Joe Romm is absolutely correct — when climate denialists claim scientists made up climate change so they could be given money for projects, they neglect the fact that people like Rick Perry get a shit-ton of money from oil companies. Why do oil companies need to buy politicians to the tune of millions of dollars to fight against those evil, evil scientists who get tens of thousands of dollars in grants to study reality?

A vote for *any* Republican candidate is a vote to eliminate the EPA, to eliminate scientific research of the reality of climate change, and to generally eliminate science as a whole.

Like this:

Related

About the author

Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.

The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember -- this is my property, not yours.

Post navigation

29 thoughts on “If you are anti-science, you are anti-jobs.”

Considering the response Sam Harris has received for is post about taxing the wealthy I think America has more problems than it can reasonably handle, I think.

I find it terribly peculiar that tens of millions of people repeatedly vote for things that are to their own disadvantage. Perhaps it’s just that I’ve never spent any time IN America that it seems so strange but taxing the wealthy and funding science and education seem to be a no-brainer for a better America?

I dunno. I get this nagging feeling that the powers-that-be don’t want a healthy, content, productive population, because they would lose political power. There are studies linking religiosity to despair, and we know there’s a link between religiosity and voting Republican. Seems a little too obviously conspiracy theory, but I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if that was the actual plan.

It meshes quite nicely with what I’ve been reading about for the last week on politics projecting its own vested interests on science to fool the politically gullible who know little about the scientific process…

…much to the short-term financial benefit to the highly-paid lobbies promoting science denial.

The conservative movement is shooting itself in the foot on this one.

They will lose, because we will all lose if the anti-science advocates succeed in their efforts to cripple their own country for personal gain – ‘patriots’ indeed.

I had never noticed that before but it sounds just about right. The climate alarmists look to ACC as a new god, they see it in everything, the use it to explain all earth related phenomena now. The alarmists look to ACC as a great source of despair. It is a non-organized form of religiosity, and there seems to be a link between this form of religiosity and voting Democrat. Despair and religiosity, I think you are correct, there is a link.

“I find it terribly peculiar that tens of millions of people repeatedly vote for things that are to their own disadvantage”

I know what you mean, for example carbon taxes, the Liberal’s ‘Green shift’, replacing incadescent bulbs with murcury laden CF bulbs, wind turbine farms or Europe’s Cap&Trade nightmare, to name a few. I agree.

“when climate denialists claim scientists made up climate change so they could be given money for projects, they neglect the fact that people like Rick Perry get a shit-ton of money from oil companies.”

You’re not suggesting that money from Big Oil is somehow evil while money from Big Green is pure and inviolate are you? I can tell by the way you write that is exactly what you are suggesting. OMG.

Industry provides large sums of money to their presidential candidates because they believe he will support them if he wins office. This guy is from Texas, Texas is an oil state, he had better get oil money to support him, it would be rather bizarre if he did not. Obama is from Illinois, he was supposed to get money from the Chicago Climate Exchange (which he helped to create) but the exchange has folded, so now Obama will get money from elsewhere. Where they get their money is open to public scrutiny, I would not be surprised if Obama receives some oil money. I would not be surprised if Perry gets some money from Solar companies.

What’s the problem, Klem? Can’t figure out that you can put all your comments into one single one? Or are you just that desperate to fill my “recent comments” widget with your name? No wonder other forums have deleted you on sight. That, and the fact that you present absolutely no evidence for any of your assertions.

I need to ask you a serious question, and your answer will entirely determine how I deal with your comments from now on. I could sit here and post you link after link to evidence that shows your ideas to be incorrect, but it could be entirely wasted effort, and I don’t like to waste my or my readers’ time with unreadable, unevidenced whargarbl. My question is:

What would it take to convince you that you’re wrong about, well, pretty much anything you’ve just said?

“What’s the problem, Klem? Can’t figure out that you can put all your comments into one single one”

Actually, no I think I can figure that out. I don’t enjoy those really long boring lectures that some people like to post, you know the ones where you have to scroll down forever to get to the persons final point. People’s remarks are short here so I followed that lead.

“No wonder other forums have deleted you on sight.”

Typical lefties, can’t wait to delete opposing views so it merely appears that the whole world agrees with them, I see it all the time. A few years ago no opposing views were allowed on ACC blogs, all were deleted. It was not until the spring of 2009 that I noticed a few blogs were allowing climate skeptics a voice, and it was not until the fall of 2009 that the media finally began allowing skeptics airtime. Pathetic.

“That, and the fact that you present absolutely no evidence for any of your assertions.”

Neither did the other people who posted above, yet you’re not giving them a hard time. Little touchy aren’t you? Can’t handle little opposition?

“What would it take to convince you that you’re wrong about, well, pretty much anything you’ve just said?”

No. I’m interested in discussion, Klem. If you’re interested only in adversarialism, if you’re interested only in gainsaying what I’m talking about, I require that you provide evidence. I don’t give people a hard time about lack of evidence when they say things that I have already seen sufficient evidence to convince me. If you want to say “you’re wrong”, you are required to show why. Otherwise you’re just being a troll.

What, specifically, would convince you that the evidence we have showing anthropogenic climate change is actually correct? Is there anything that would convince you that the arguments against it are specious? I know you say “a whole lot”, but that’s actually what we have — a whole lot of evidence that this is happening and that it’s our fault. It’s just that you have rejected it out of hand. What qualifications do you bring to the table that supercede the scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that you can say they’re all wrong and you’re right? What about the fact that 99% of climate scientists agree this is happening, where most of the dissent comes from disgraced weathermen like Anthony Watts, and non-climate scientists more generally?

For the record, I happen to agree that a carbon tax is a bad idea, because it’s regressive — it disproportionately affects the poor. Cap and trade, on the other hand, disproportionately affects industrialists which might be bad for business — your particular religion. (Yes, I noticed that you tried to say environmentalism is my religion. If I’m open to your charge, you’re open to mine.) I happen to see rampant capitalism with no regard for long-term consequences as a net bad for humanity, and I have in evidence the fact that people like you have been convinced to vote against your own best interests by the right-wing. All you have is invective to offer against liberal policies. If you’re going to have a discussion with me, in hopes of convincing me that I’m wrong, you’re going to have to provide some evidence. That’s how this works.

And if you’re not interested in providing evidence, if all you want to do is troll, THAT’S why you’ll be banned. Not because you have different ideas from me, but that all you have on offer is insults, invective, and demonstrable lies. Which I’ll be happy to demonstrate if you’ll just tell me exactly what it would take to convince you that you’re wrong.

It’s pretty obvious how our totalitarian government loves this global warming scam to take away more liberty. When you think it’s okay for the government to regulate basic behavior and things like what type of light bulb I use all in the name of being environmentally friendly, you’ve lost a grip on what freedom is. Is climate change worthy of studying? Of course. Should the government force me to buy a more expensive “green” car because there is a paid consensus on the issue? Hell no.

The last thing we need is more big government advocates to perpetuate the tyrannical parade on our personal freedoms. And I’m not denying climate change – I’m simply saying that they are not leaving room for a dynamic approach to studying it. Especially its causes.

But when the government uses it to restrict my choices, take away my liberty to be as I am, and tax my income so that I am EPA Approved — I’ll stand up to the bitter end fighting it.

Yeah, Daniel! Down with the government! Governmental interference in our ability to pollute everyone else’s air is taking away our freedom to breathe air exactly as smoggy as we like it! Never mind that we’re imposing on everyone else, and that they will thereafter have to breathe air however smoggy the worst polluter deems acceptable. It’s governmental interference to demand that people not impose their damaging environmental views on one another.

And while we’re at it, it’s also governmental interference to provide police, fire and road-paving services. Everyone should pay for their own paving. And charge tolls to one another. Unregulated tolls, of course, so you can charge a million bucks to go over your tiny patch of land. The whole planet will be paved with alternative routes! And we could even charge people for putting out fires or providing mercenary police service. Capitalism for the win! (For the people on top, that is.)

It occurs to me that Daniel just answered One Furious Llama’s question. Americans have an overzealous belief in social mobility, in “the American Dream”, wherein any schmoe can make it rich. The reality of the situation is that the rich get richer, the poor stay poor. The income disparity has only increased over time — no matter how much more GDP the country makes, only the top percentiles benefit. Everyone else stagnates.

Conservatism has hitched its wagon to the extremists of a death cult that thinks (or rather, revels in the idea that) we are in the “end times” and that everything is SUPPOSED to get worse, and the Republicans in the USA (with help from a chickenshit Democratic party) are delivering that end-of-the-world misery in spades. Almost every single policy they put forward increases the money moving up the financial pyramid to the ultra-rich, shipping decent-paying jobs overseas, and decimating the middle and lower classes. Call it freedom, cite some crap about the intent of the Founding Fathers, then wrap it in the American flag and secure it with a cross lapel pin, and the religious right will buy it hook, line, and sinker every time.

You know how you can tell a Conservative? They worship Jesus and the US Constitution, but have no idea what either of them says. They think that mandating more energy efficient vehicles or light bulbs is tyranny, but controlling what a woman does with her vagina or preventing a gay couple from getting married is the height of freedom.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Religious freedom is demanding that Muslims be unable to build any mosques anywhere on American soil.

“What would it take to convince you that you’re wrong about, well, pretty much anything you’ve just said?”

A whole lot.

Notice he said this at the end of the same post where he started with:

I don’t enjoy those really long boring lectures that some people like to post, you know the ones where you have to scroll down forever to get to the persons final point.

Truly, his is a dizzying intellect. I know there’s no actual conversation to actually be had with Klem, but I can’t wait how it goes if one actually coalesces out of the miasma of conservative talking points he no doubt gets from Fox or Sun News.

hey Jason, Mr. Sinned34 has made all kinds of insults, invectives, and demonstrable lies, aren’t you going to give him a hard time about providing evidence to support them? Or are they ok because they fit with your own? Typical lefty hypocracy. I see it everyday. Lol!

No, Klem, I see nothing in his comment that can be demonstrated to be a lie. Perhaps you’d like to take on the burden of actually showing evidence for your beliefs? And perhaps you’d like to tell me what would convince you that you’re wrong like I’ve asked three times?

I’m also really amused that you thumbed-down that graph. What don’t you like about it? Is it that the facts disprove your beliefs?

I don’t think that was me that thumbed down the graph. I actually did not look at it. If I did thumb it down, I did it inadvertently. I have now looked at it, I don’t have a problem with that graph in any way. Appears factual to me.

Here’s a graph which I think you might be interested in, perhaps you might want to blog about this if you haven’t already. Its represents the US money supply over the last several decades. All I can say is, once this recession is over, this over supply of money must be corrected, and guess who will pay the price? The poor and middle class, it won’t bother the rich at all. Be prepared to pay and pay folks, forewarned is forearmed.

I don’t see how it particularly disagrees, Klem. It certainly at first glance fits with the greater trend of concentration of wealth in amongst the highest percentiles.

It also suggests that the recession — predicated as it is on two wars and a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the already-rich — was handled poorly. Economists have almost uniformly suggested that Obama’s stimulus package was insufficient to put anything but a minor dent in it, and these new austerity measures (cutting anything that isn’t a tax break for the rich or more bombs to kill brown people) are certainly not going to help matters.

All of this is tangential to the point that being anti-science is being anti-jobs, of course. The government can, in fact, create jobs. The biggest economic driver is the lower and middle class’ prosperities, and if they are hobbled, the whole economy tanks. The government can reinstate taxes that are reasonable for those of us that have all the money, e.g. the rich, and end programs that give grant money to oil companies who already make a shitton of money all on their own. Then use those revenues to implement job-creating programs like scientific research or hell, even just infrastructure repair, considering how much of your infrastructure is crumbling! It’s within the government’s purview and power to fix the economy. It’s even within the government’s ability, if they drop some of their current anti-populist rhetoric.

And once the economy is fixed, then can we look at addressing all the really good evidence that we have that suggests we’re heading off a bloody cliff with this whole global warming thing? Seriously. We’re dependent on and even giving government money to technologies that have stagnated over time and are demonstrably detrimental to humanity’s long-term prospects. When can we address those issues?

Interesting graph, Klem. Wouldn’t it be helpful if the Democrats could just raise taxes and/or lower military spending? Unfortunately, the Democrats have no spine, and since the second they suggest either of those things the Republicans will crucify them for trying to prevent rich people from creating jobs and for letting the Muslim horde overrun the country, nothing in Washington will ever change.

Remember what happened to the USSR in the cold war? Their country’s economy tanked, in no small part to runaway military spending. Now, witness the fact that since the end of the cold war, America’s military spending has almost doubled. Unfortunately, neither party in the USA is willing to address the wisdom of spending more to “protect” American lives instead of spending to improve American lives (or just not spending at all).

If the conservatives have their way, pretty much the only jobs left in the USA in the next 10 years will be soldier, prison guard, and ticket attendant at the “Ark Encounters” Christian theme park.

What? You wouldn’t want to go to Ark Encounters theme park? Oh that’s too bad. You should go. Barring that you can always donate money to help build the park. You could be a Peg, Plank or Beam level contributor. Just think about enjoying some of the exhibits like “The Tower of Babel” or “Noah’s Animals” or my favorite “Natural Selection” exhibit where you will “learn the truth about Gods design in natural selection”. You’ll miss all of that. You should go, really.

Are you kidding, Klem? Fantasy is a cornerstone of human economy. I wouldn’t suggest shutting it down unless you planned on building something in its place that employs as many people. But I’m not about to sponsor them directly, nor should the government. Now, the government is free to make jobs by building roads and bridges out to that tourist-trap, though.

Your trollishness appears to be on the decline. Not fun any more, Klem?

I certainly never said I wouldn’t want to go to Ark Encounters. Like Jason said, I love a good mythology. I’m sure it’ll be just like going to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, except that the people who work at Ark Encounters will creepily be trying to convince people the fictional theme of their park actually happened. At least the makers of Harry Potter Land won’t try to hide their profit motive behind the mistaken belief they’re “on a mission from God”. Also, I do have a little bit of a problem with how much tax money is being thrown at a park designed for religious proselytizing. Imagine the outcry if millions of tax dollars were assigned to a park where central theme is a recreation of Mohammed’s ascension to Heaven.

That said, maybe I’ve been on skeptic forums way too long, because this last comment from you seems rather tongue in cheek. Perhaps a slip of Poe is showing?

Oh by the way, if you are anti-creationist, you are anti-jobs.

How many people does it take to say, “You’re wrong – God did it”? It can’t be that many. But let’s have a look at all those scientific advances creationists have made over the years. Let’s see, there’s… Baraminology, I guess. I mean, that alone has gotta create a dozen jobs! As far as “advances”, that seems to be about it. But the collection plate industry would collapse without them!

I always knew that at some point you might try to lecture on the ills of capitalism. I wish I knew what it was like to live in a proper capitalist economy – unfortunately I don’t.

It’s always the State-worshipers who cannot imagine a world without mommy State providing for us. Whatever might we do without our benevolent overlords watching over us!

Under a pure free-market environment, I’d be willing to be that we would have had more “green” technology faster. If there was a company who was pollution our air and causing serious health issues, we would have access to the justice system to sue the company for damages. The company, acting on behalf of their own self-interest, would indeed try to pursue technology or production methods that don’t elicit legal issues.

Or if there were crops being damages by a local factory, the crop owners could sue for damages. There would be an incentive for the factor to either move or to seek out better, less polluting technology.

But, of course, as with any serf, you’re willing to bet that it is our good public “servants” who only want what is good for us. They are selfless beings, only submitting to the “public good” forever.

I’m not against police officers – they protect the rights of private citizens. I don’t mind firemen if they have the approval of the local citizenry.

In regards to the roads, you miss a few points.

Number 1 – there is a moral hazard with taxes being used to roads that may not benefit the individual tax payer.

Number 2 – privatized roads are built more efficiently, kept safer (to avoid litigation), and have the people who use them in the best interest (otherwise they wouldn’t build it).

Number 2a – there are numerous ways a privately owned highway can be funded without direct contribution from the patrons of that road. An example would be the numerous of businesses who would benefit from traffic coming from that road and the use of it to transport goods.

Number 3 – the taxes saved can be used for the toll (this is a weaker argument, but it still plays in).

I’m not surprised you cannot imagine a world where the government isn’t the provider of everything. Capitalism, in its purest form, is the reason why you have the standard of living that you do – the treacherous State didn’t give it to you.

I’m not an anarchist. I believe that the enforcement of contracts, protection of life and property, and access to a fair justice system to settle dispute without violence, and national defense, is the primary role of government.

Instead, we’ve been taught that the State can control what you eat, where you sleep, how you talk, where you go to school, what you can drive, how you can work, who you can hire, and put you in jail for growing a plant (marijuana), drinking alcohol, remolding your home, video tapping an police officer….etc.

I’m not State enthusiast. That’s obvious. And yes Jason, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER. DOWN WITH THE PARTY. DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM.

I’m always reminded in these conversation that I truly hate the State.

Maybe we have different understandings of what a “pure free-market environment” entails, but I’m fairly certain the examples you provide as rationale behind your statement:I’d be willing to be that we would have had more “green” technology faster

If it was a “pure free-market environment”, what makes you think that individuals would be successful in suing large corporations because of pollution? The laws that any suit would be based on would have to contradict the “pure free-market environment” idea.

A strong justice system is not compatible with a “pure free-market environment”, as that justice system would rely on government intervention and regulation. I’m not sure how you and I have such different understandings of what you are promoting.

Also, your point Number 2:privatized roads… have the people who use them in the best interest (otherwise they wouldn’t build it).

Are you suggesting that a business would place its own self-interests as secondary to their customers? That if they had a choice between doing something that would benefit the company at the expense of the consumer (with a guarantee that the consumer would not find out), the company would say ‘no’? I’m fairly certain that most businesses are rational actors that have their own self-interest as top priority, but I guess you would disagree.

Again, I’m not sure how you and I have such different understandings of how a business would make decisions in a “pure free-market environment”.

In regards to your first question, people could sue corporations based on property damage and/or physical damage.

When the justice system is propped up to objectively protect individuals and solve disputes and enforcing contracts and private property rights – we can get to the place we want to be.

It isn’t contrary to a free market system if the government is used to punish damage to someone’s property or self. After all, this is what the primary role of government is.

“Regulation” has many special interests attached from corporation to government bureaucracies. A recent example is the Dept. of Energy “regulating” businesses who make light bulbs. Under the pretense that these new light bulbs are environmentally friendly and making the production and sale of such light bulbs compulsory, this tyrannical regulatory apparatus is restricting free choice and destroying jobs at the same time.

The FDA recently raided a raw food company like they were terrorists – because the government doesn’t believe you should be free to make choices and take risks.

To your second point – you have to think in deeper layers to understand the concept of self-interesting businesses.

My wife often thinks that when I surrender an argument I am officially sacrificing my argument to please her. That I am. However, I am completely self-interested in that I do not want to deal with it any more. That is the second layer.

The indirect benefits to the businesses such as traffic to their business, the cheaper transport of goods to their locations, etc. would cause them to want and possibly FUND the roads.

If it is the road builder, all he or she would have to do is convince the businesses that it is a net benefit if indeed the patrons of that road were not to pay a toll.

If there is a toll, then there is a direct benefit.

I do not mind paying a toll going into orange county when I do. It saves me about 30 minutes driving time. I don’t go through it angry at the businessman who created such a wonderful passage way to the coast. In fact, I do the complete opposite. I can’t stop thanking him under my breath for such a road. During traffic hour it saves me an hour and half driving time!

A strong justice system means that individual rights are protected along with property rights. We don’t need government to protect us from “big corporations,” a Lazare-faire economy would protect us through competition. This is true because the government doesn’t create barrier to entry like it does in so many industries.